While some, like Fred Bergsten, director of the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington, found that these factors would be offset by the demonstrated ability of each Member State to overcome their differences. And with regards to Britain, The Economist once again stated in May of 1997 that “one should not exaggerate these problems.” “America does not seem an ideal currency. If the single currency requires governments to make their economies more flexible, as they expect of many of its supporters, it will bring further benefits and will not impose higher costs.” But there was a British voice against the project of monetary union for technical reasons and not political – a very special character, Wynne Godley, a professional musician and then an economist at the Treasury and later a professor at King’s, Cambridge. In October 1992 Godley, who died last year, wrote a prophetic article in the London Review of Books. He wrote: “While I support the movement towards political integration of Europe, I believe that the proposals of Maastricht have serious deficiencies,” he said. After citing a list of technical objections strangely reminiscent of the problems that exist in these days in the euro area, he concluded: “I sympathize with the position of those (like Margaret Thatcher), who face the loss of sovereignty, they want to jump down from the train that is the monetary union. I also sympathize with those who seek integration with some legal form of the Federal Constitution with a federal budget much larger than the budget of the Community. What I find very disconcerting is the position of those who seek monetary union without creating new political institutions (apart from a new central bank) and who raise their hands in horror at the word ‘federal’ or ‘federalism’. It is the position of the government and almost all those involved in public debate.” Nobody listened. The summit, then a major project, is still incomplete, the full economic union/ monetary union is Europe is dead and another has begun to emerge. The Brussels summit has now a great lighting design (though incomplete) complete economic union monetary union began with the creation of the euro in 1999. It ‘was a key unresolved. It was survival of the single currency, probably in the market and perhaps the Union. To ensure this, the summit had to do without ballast, who refused to take the step, the United Kingdom and Hungary, through national, fowl or fundamentalist. Contrary to what may seem, is more fragmented, and the EU because they were fractures, but always postponed suture. There comes a Union with fewer members, because the 27 will be 27. But within them will be a more articulate enlarged euro area, a union premium, willing to work not only expressed his “economic integration”, but also to draw a “common economic policy.” Big words. Opens formal double speed (although in reality the free movement Schengen and the euro has come to be two circles), which cancels the blackmail of a single member veto, and then the paralysis of all, made possible by the persistence of unanimity. For example, given the need to move towards an economic union will result in a deeper fiscal convergence in the financial and banking regulation policy (at least in society and the Tobin Tax) and the disappearance of a privileged status.